Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 301 posts

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#231

Post by pdonis »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #59
trimbo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Airbus be different?

Because Europe has not legalized corruption to the same degree as the US. Massive campaign contributions is not as common in Europe, hence large European multi-nationals likely don't have the same opportunity to change regulations to serve them. Of course they can still influence politicians by talking about all the jobs they will provide etc. Also power in Europe is not centralized the same way as it is in the US. I…

> Europe has not legalized corruption to the same degree as the US

Surely you jest. EU law is written by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to an even larger degree than US law is.

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#232

Post by Xixi »

snowwrestler wrote: post #44
davidhyde wrote: post #8

What is keeping Boeing's share price so stable in the wake of such catastrophic news for the company this year?

I'm sure Boeing would have loved to have those orders, but 50 planes is not catastrophic. In terms of the aircraft group, Boeing has steadily growing 787 orders and deliveries, with about 500 orders yet to deliver. In terms of their space program, they are close to testing their manned capsule and just got a light touch program review, while SpaceX got put through the ringer. And there are other aspects to Boeing tha…

787 orders and deliveries are very nice, but the bread and butter of Boeing and Airbus remains the 737 and A320 families. As you say Boeing has 500 orders for 787 yet to deliver, but they most importantly have 4,500 of the 737 remaining to deliver. Same for Airbus, they have about 600 orders for the A350 yet to deliver, but they most importantly have over 6,000 A320 in the pipeline.

The biggest issue for Boeing is that the MAX sold about 5,000 frames vs 7,000 for the A320NEO, going from a 50%/50% market shares (737NG vs A320) down to 40%/60% market shares (737MAX vs A320NEO). On the other hand the A320 is practically sold out for the next decade (Airbus is aiming at a production of 750/year, and that's quite a challenge), so the ratio is unlikely to move much.

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#233

Post by TwoHeadedBeast »

johngalt wrote: post #204
davidhyde wrote: post #8

What is keeping Boeing's share price so stable in the wake of such catastrophic news for the company this year?

1. The market correctly understands that Boeing is backstopped by the US government. Removing any large downside risk. 2. Even including the problems with the 737 max, Boeing has an exceptionally good safety record. 3. Regulatory capture of the FAA by Boeing is bad news for consumers, but not necessarily for shareholders. 4. Investing in aircraft manufacturers during a growing economy is reasonable and Boeing is one…

On your fourth point, a downturn is widely anticipated and aircraft manufacturers would be particularly affected.

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#234

Post by pdonis »

ahartmetz wrote: post #130
alexis_fr wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airbus scandal won’t come “in a month”: Boeing’s problems became public in 2013 and it is the same problem over and over. - The Ducommon airframes in 2013, problem is FAA delegated certification to Boeing, - The batteries, albeit smaller, - The MAX, 2 crashes due to oversight and to the FAA delegating certification to Boeing. Boeing’s problem didn’t come in a day, but in 20 years since the merge with MD, who had the…

Well, for Airbus there is this where it looks like problems were swept under the rug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296 ... though from the same era, there is this for Boeing which seems much worse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues

> for Airbus there is this where it looks like problems were swept under the rug

Or this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72

This is the same basic design flaw that Boeing's MCAS has (allowing a single AoA sensor failure to cause the airplane to do unexpected and dangerous things), but unlike MCAS, it wasn't an ad hoc addition to deal with an issue in a redesign of an old airplane, it was designed into all Airbus fly-by-wire aircraft from the start.

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#235

Post by wvenable »

igravious wrote: post #195
crb wrote: post #137

Fun fact: United used to be part of Boeing. The two were split in 1934 when a scandal around air mail pricing led to laws saying you couldn't both make planes and operate them commercially. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_Airlines

"you couldn't both make planes and operate them commercially." We need a way more laws like this :) I'll start with 3 off the top of my head. 1) You can't both make content and distribute content commercially 2) (More abstractly) You can't both make a platform and compete with sellers and resellers on that platform 3) You can't both make a mass or social media product and allow advertisers' concerns to dictate conten…

Sometimes this has unintended consequences. For example, not being able to make cars and sell them directly as created a system that doesn't necessarily benefit consumers.

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#236

Post by ggm »

igravious wrote: post #195
crb wrote: post #137

Fun fact: United used to be part of Boeing. The two were split in 1934 when a scandal around air mail pricing led to laws saying you couldn't both make planes and operate them commercially. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_Airlines

"you couldn't both make planes and operate them commercially." We need a way more laws like this :) I'll start with 3 off the top of my head. 1) You can't both make content and distribute content commercially 2) (More abstractly) You can't both make a platform and compete with sellers and resellers on that platform 3) You can't both make a mass or social media product and allow advertisers' concerns to dictate conten…

Australia has media policy like this in regard to newspaper TV and radio in Metro areas. Didn't stop Rupert Murdoch centralised ownership of media but kind of kept it at bay. Also banking.

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#237

Post by CamperBob2 »

dnautics wrote: post #90
SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In terms of their space program, they are close to testing their manned capsule and just got a light touch program review, while SpaceX got put through the ringer. I'm sure this will end well for them...

Oh no kidding. I'm putting puts on BA ahead of their upcoming capsule failure in two weeks.

Except the whole point of this subthread is that Boeing's stock price never faces any actual consequences, regardless of how badly the company screws up.

Boeing will not be allowed to fail, even if it personally bankrupts every taxpayer in the United States. And they know it.

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#238

Post by ggm »

rconti wrote: post #221
0xffff2 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they say "business travelers", do they mean people traveling for business, or people traveling in business class? I am fairly certain that those are almost entirely disparate groups at this point.

People traveling for business. And they're more profitable for reasons not relating to class of seat.

Premium economy is profitable and robbing economy and business. We might see a return to a happy medium

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#239

Post by kevstev »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #71
lm28469 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably the least of their concerns when they design a plane though.

I wouldn't be so sure, passenger comfort was a big selling point of the 787 and the A380.

Absolutely- For a few years I was traveling over 100k miles annually interestingly mostly in the back of the bus on United's 757 fleet between EWR and SFO, and if I had a choice, I would choose a double aisle over a single aisle any day. In fact, I would do almost anything to avoid the 757- it's one of the oldest airplanes still in service, the last rolling off the assembly line 15 years ago.

Just the higher ceiling height on double-aisle aircraft make the trip so much less claustrophobic, and the double aisles mean that you aren't essentially held hostage until the service cart rolls by.

The 757 is an old, loud, design and loading/unloading it took forever, all the while you had cramped overhead bins. It wasn't often I could avoid the 757 when going to SF, but if I had any option, I would avoid it. Literally any other plane in service is a more pleasant experience. I always thought it was somewhat ironic that United chose the oldest plane in any major airline's fleet to fly between two tech hubs- those 757s were also pretty much the last to get wifi onboard as well.

The topic of 757s trigger me a bit :)

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#240

Post by magduf »

Gwypaas wrote: post #227
briandear wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airbus gets EU subsidies that works as an effective tariff against Boeing.

And Boeing gets US subsidies. "The World Trade Organization said on Thursday the United States had ignored its request to halt a subsidized tax break for Boeing Co in its main plane-making state of Washington as a 15-year-old transatlantic trade row edges towards tit-for-tat sanctions." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-usa-aircraft-wto/wto-s...

It's funny how the US complains about China propping up or even owning (usually partially) big corporations there, but they do the same with Boeing and many other companies.

At least in China, the government is the one that has the final say on everything, and the state-owned corporations have to do what the government wants. Here, the corporations get to do what they want, but they still get subsidies from the government but without being required to operate in the interests of the government or the nation at large.

Post reply on HN